Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

George Soros is Chairman of Soros Fund Management and Chairman of the Open Society Foundations. A pioneer of the hedge-fund industry, he is the author of many books, including
The Alchemy of Finance, The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means, and The Tragedy of the European Union.

The negotiations over Britain’s withdrawal from the EU have made little headway in the six months since Prime Minister Theresa May invoked Article 50 to begin the process. The lack of progress has antagonized the EU, while making ever more obvious the huge costs and scant rewards of leaving.

It is always fascinating when someone comparing something that we can measure with something we can't. Mr Soros comparing Brexit that happened and we can measure wages with an alternative life without Brexit that did not happened therefore you can't measure. So how would Mr Soros knows about wages that did not happened.Mr Soros only has his bias globalist opinion but can't have facts that did not happened. So my opinion that wages would have gone done 10 percent if Brexit did not happened. Of course I don't have the facts. Anyway if someone talking about an economic measurement like wage increases compared to inflation should maybe understand what is inflation and what is inflated in the price of an economic output. But of course in the globalist economic wages can never increase with the level of inflation in the developed countries because profits are moved away from where it created the debt.So how do you increase wages if profits are globalized?

Politicians ought to consider what the citizen think. Just some recent statistics. People were asked if they thought the Brexit is bad for the EU. EU average was 69 %. Sweden 86, the Netherlands 80, Spain 78, Germany 74, France 59. and the UK 71. Perhaps figures such as these may alter their positions.

Yeah. It kind of depends on who you ask. Yes, it is true the EU will try to do everything they can to make this difficult for Britain. But the fact is this; The EU is an undemocratic union ruled by unelected bureaucrats. They tell countries what their press is allowed to say. They tax one set of countries to benefit other countries, redistributing the wealth out of countries like England. They don't ask. They tell. America fought for "no taxation without representation" and it was a fairly just argument. It may be a mess in the short term, but the EU is showing its stripes already, and things will only get worse. In the end, England will be better off out of that quagmire. Not to mention that there is still a trade treaty with the USA on the table.

Completely agree on all points. So far as the tabloids go - the true shame isn't that they stirred the 'race' pot but that it took so little effort to do so - as they well knew. I've spent about two thirds of my life (74 yrs and counting!) in the US and elsewhere, the balance here. Returning to the US after a while, I'm routinely assured it's no longer 'racist.' Returning here after another while, i'm assured it's no longer 'class-ridden.' Hah! I wish either were true. Even before the Re[publican primary, the best predictor of being a Trump supporter was views on race; NOT, as the more polite advertised, financial stress. The same was true here of Brexit. Yes, in both cases, there were a lot of aggravating factors - but they largely played into the racism-in-the-woodwork and gave it cover.

Yes, people here were lied to, shamelessly and outrageously. And it makes me furious that one of the chief con men and liars is now Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of Sate for Foreign Affairs. this is a damn insult to every nation - this one included. This has not gone unremarked in the Corridors of Power.

A second referendum? I'd love to think so. Or that some politician had the guts to say 'Wait a minute, folks. The best deal we could get is the one we have. Let's call the whole thing off!' How the Sun would Shine, and the Daily, Wail!

But there seems nobody who will do this. Again, I regret a second referendum will not happen til long after that other Second Round, long looked for (2 thou years!) is ancient history.

it's one thing to slip on the occasional banana skin of history. Quite another, to insouciantly strew them before one. Cameron and May clearly love the fruit. Then to act all boo-hoo and surprised. See also, Cameron.

REQUIREMENTS OF SUPER MAJORITY
Referendum 2016 and General Elections 2017 - considered together - perhaps manifest the opinion of the British Public.
And if those two opinions were not good enough to obtain Real Crystal Clear mind - Market Research expertise may sift through to get one.
But the central issue must be The National Interest - not 20 points lead in Gallup - and The Parliament must discharge.
The Parliament when it approved The Referendum 2016 - perhaps in hindsight imposed a Super Majority.
The Parliament when it approved The General Elections 2017 - perhaps shouldn't have departed from Fixed Tenure.
Responsibility must rest with The Parliament in matters of National Interest - and The Brexit Result is that important.
Given the predicament - Economics demands staying the Single Market versus Referendum chose exit from The European Union.
The choice - that perhaps meets the desire of Democracy - has to be a nuanced one that reflects both.
Especially important in the context of the Security Architecture - where America Britain Canada together with Europe protect The West.
Because, once Brexit if finally formalised as Total Departure, May result in demands to exit from The Security Architecture.
Merkel - like DeGaulle in 1971 - is already in tandem with JCJ articulating Independence of Europe, without The Anglosphere.

The responsibility to get the Right Permutations in terms of Memberships of Clubs - must reflect all possible repercussions.
Ideally perhaps The Security Architecture must enable a preferential arrangements with respect to Single Market Architecture.
The Eurozone by constructing a Preferential Area within - will impose strains incongruous with Security Architecture.
The Parliament appropriately must enable discussions and ensure that Referendum and General Elections have super majority imposed.
Where and when necessary - in tandem with Corporate Rules that often impose the requirements of Super Majority.

Soros is yesterday's, Man. Neo-Liberalism has been found out and Soros´s brand of Financialised Capitalism and Stae Monopoly manipulation of Markets has been Exposed. The People of Britain, as well as the people of Europe, remember the Golden Age of Social Democracy and even Democratic Socialism. Neo-Liberalism having failed to deliver on its promises and having undermined British Democracy and institutions will now be set aside, as will the EU. The Eu if it reforms and goes back on Track of Social Democracy may Survive and see the power vector restored from the people to the Executive and not this top down Elite, Managerial command and control Farce.
At the heart of this, and this is something Soros, Does or rather should understand its the Magic Money Tree. The EU, Britain and the Washington Consensus have all been suffering a debt deflation post the 2008 Collapse, Heterodox economic theorists like myself, Led by Hudson, Keen, Wray, Mitchell, Mosler, Murphy Werner, Dyson, Adair Turner and Even Mervyn King, have exposed the Neo-Liberal Pump and Dump scheme for what it is, A giant Ponzi Scheme, For these fraudulent Crimes alone, The Soros´s of this world should be serving Time at the Pleasure of The various States whose coffers they have hollowed out with the assistance of a generation or two of Weak Minded, Lemonade pocketed yet Champagne Tasted Politicians and Bureaucrats.
As well as being an Idea, Democracy is a process. The Process is informed by history and the Idea and the process is independent of Oligarchs such as Mr Soros. Now there are clear divisions in the Oligarchy, and I am glad to speculate that Soros´s faction is Losing. They have lost the Intellectual Arguments, even though they have tried to corrupt our academic Institutions, They Are losing the Political Arguments even though they have tried to buy the silence of the media Outlets, They are losing the Popular arguments, as Poverty levels and health outcomes have become too obvious and so obviously the fault of the "Elites". So for all the blaming of victims, Spin and Hopeless Senile confirmation biases wrapped up in the shell of an Octagenarian has been, we still see that the old adage is holding true. As it always does, “all political careers end in failure”. Even covert ones and Mr Soros´s is no different. I for one celebrate and rejoice for Soros´s brand of extreme neoliberal fascism has no place in a Post-Scarcity Society with Ethical standards of Compassion caring love and respect. You have done enough damage, Mr Soros, enjoy a long and healthy retirement, but you are no longer needed or wanted. You are the Weakest Link, Good Bye.

When it comes to economics it's often hard to know who is dafter. The far right or the far left. Both constantly deny the fundamental laws of economics and the often base aspects of human nature. I have news for you Roger, what you call neo liberalism (the use of the phrase itself an instant tell) but what can be more accurately described as modern global capitalism is very much alive and well and shows no signs of coming to an end. The reason is simple. For all its shortcomings (the imperfection of markets, inequality etc.) it is simply the most effective means of providing modern mass societies with the goods and services they require at a reasonable cost. On the political front its organizational expression which is basically modestly center left or right social democracy also reigns supreme in most of the developed world as the three recent major European elections and the upcoming one in Germany demonstrate. Gotterdammerung you will be disappointed to hear has been postponed.

The fact is that two Conservative prime ministers (Cameron and May) have landed the British in a hell of a mess. The fundamental problem with Brexit is that there really is no middle way. You're either in the market with all the obligations that entails or you're out of it with the all the loss of privileges this involves. It's also very clear that the EU are in the driving seat. Thus May's government are faced with the alternative of a more apparent than real exit (aka Norway) or out for real which can conducted in an orderly or disorderly fashion. The problem with the Norway approach (which is Britain's best option right now) is why are they leaving at all since essentially they will have all the obligations of EU membership and no vote or influence in the EU.

@John Ellis, Mr Ellis, Your condecension is wholly commensurate with the scale of your Arrogant Ignorance. Let me ask you this, What is Money. If you know the answer to that question try this one one as well. Is it wise to measure anything with a Variable Ruler?
FInanlly may I suggest that you are within a category ably described by John Ruskin in Unto this last Thus.

"Pardon me. Men of business do indeed know how they themselves
made their money, or how, on occasion, they lost it. Playing a
the long-practised game, they are familiar with the chances of its
cards, and can rightly explain their losses and gains. But they
neither know who keeps the bank of the gambling-house nor what
other games may be played with the same cards, nor what other
losses and gains, far away among the dark streets, are
essentially, though invisibly, dependent on theirs in the lighted
rooms. They have learned a few, and only a few, of the laws of
mercantile economy; but not one of those of political economy."

And a little poem to help you along your Way Mr Ellis.
http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/06/magic-money-tree-ents-groots-marvel-at.html

Once again it looks as if the EU will undo the Tory Party and another general election is likely in six months. The Labour Party (in Parliament) is hardly the oasis of stability so the answer may be some sort of strange coalition driven by the rapidly falling economic prospects during the pre - Brexit confusion.

I think that the problem down the road will be that the EU will present an obstacle course for the "new" relationship that is almost impossible to pass. UK could revive its EFTA membership, but the Swiss variety would not give the right kind of access, while the Norwegian variety (assuming Iceland etc want the UK in, which is highly uncertain) keep the 4 freedoms and a close cousin of the ECJ. On top of that, the advocates for keeping the UK in, or accommodating may well turn out to be unreliable: mainly German multinationals, Dutch fishermen, etc. A disparate set of interest groups and very difficult to coordinate. I guess that the horse has bolted, that the UK is on a course that it cannot complete succesfully. One of those interesting cases where the victims are unhappy and possibly aggressive. The role of the political charlatan tends to be underestimated by administrator-politicians, who normally manage to maintain control of democracies and keep them from either desintegrating into anarchy or collapse and pave the way for authoritarianism. In the UK the politicians have neglected that task and the nation will reap the fruits for maybe a generation. A return to the EU would be a better than avarage outcome, but unlikely to be popular enough in the UK, even after people have been looking into the abyss as seems possible given the suicidal (and brave if intended so) attempts of the Tory Party to make Brexit fail. There is too much antipathy on both sides to go on with the UK exceptions and full scale integration as will be imposed by Berlin and Paris is clearly unacceptable. So, for the EU the best would be to leave the UK alone and without a generous trade deal.

All very well, rational and one way to deal with the situation. But the difficulty is that in order to get this outcome, May would have to compromise at least to some extent on free movement. This would cost her, her job. which she has no intention of losing.

But in any case, such a compromise would defeat the main purpose of the Brexiters - impolite to mention - which is 'to make England (advised usage) White again.' This is exactly the same dynamic as gave Trump his job. It's not about economics, either in the US or UK. It's about fear, anger and hatred.

Try negotiating those away.

But to the point - should the main motivation for Brexit be rendered moot in negotiations , by far the most rational thing to do would be to call the whole lunacy off. Too bad rationality is a minority sport.

I sense your comment encapsulates the emotions behind the vote very well - at least from what I can see and hear around me. The population is really angry about the lack of housing and decent jobs.

The braying tabloids, being owned by right-wing paymasters, have focused the people's anger on immigrants, and as is usual in Anglo-capitalist countries, squawked on incessantly about 'red tape', particularly of the European kind. When given the chance to poke the austerity government and the vilified Europeans in the eye, they seized it. There is always, very tragically, in my view an element of racism in this "leaver" thinking, and the thought of more migrants from the warn-torn Middle East, where we continue to bomb, furnish arms to lunatics, and generally interfere in matters that do no concern us, put the population over the edge and into the 'Leave' camp.

Recently though, four different acquaintances of mine have intimated that they think they were lied to over the referendum. One of them has had cancer for some time and she voted out because of the state the NHS is in. She told me last Friday that she now believes she was lied to...

A fantastic and succinct analysis of Brexit. When the vote turned to Brexit I believed that this would lead to economic downturn. The effects in the immediate term would be uncertainty and volatility, but the short term would seem relatively stable as unwinding Brexit would take time. The problems would start to arise a little further out when the big banks in London, and other businesses would start to look at how their workforce was positioned in the EU (to take advantage of the larger economic trading area), how they were positioned for the legal issues arising from operating within the EU versus on the wealthy, but smaller islands of the UK, and facing a shrinking marketplace for goods and services. I fear the newer global economic realities which face all, including historically powerful/wealthy nations, may not turn out the way we have come to expect them to from historical data and patterns. Not to mention the film industry and our potential loss of the next blockbuster "Game of Thrones" series.

BRUSSELS MUST REMAIN ELECTABLE
When Scotland wants to walk out - Westminster has to redefine The Rules, to keep them inside.
When USSR Republics wanted a walk out - Moscow was accountable to redefine The Rules that kept the Republics inside.
When Britain wants a walk out - Brussels must be held accountable to redefine The Rules that keeps Britain inside.
The Rules - Made in Brussels - is what made Brexit inevitable.
The onus must be on Brussels - With responsibility, accountability is mandatory.
Fundamental issue - when the cause of the event is Brussels, the answers have to be provided by Brussels - is not Britain.
Brussels seems safely ensconced - making The Rules causing Brexit, without accountability for Reversing Brexit.
The British Public - via Democracy - needs Brussels TO BE ELECTABLE : for the moment, BRUSSELS IS UNELECTABLE.

I'm not sure if the election was such a disaster to Tories. Yes, they might have lost 12 seats but didn't SNP loose 19 and UKIP received 2% of votes vs. 13% in 2015. So they way I look at it, as an outsider mind you, is that SNP has been cut down a notch i.e. chances of another Scottish independence referendum are lot slimmer now while UKIP has served its purpose and was confined to dust bin of history. Tories managed to eliminate two significant threats at a price of 12 seats. Sure the majority is gone but with DUP's support, you still can have your way. Not a bad result, if you ask me. Before people will start mentioning the resurgent Labour, I'll just say, keep smoking what you're smoking because it ain't happening. Dead cat bounce, that's all.

The SNP had its second-best election result - after 2015 - since the party was formed. It's hardly a fail on the scale of that which the Tories enjoyed, seeing a 17-seat majority thrown away in a vain bid to achieve a 50+ majority.

George Soros’ pessimistic forecast of the effect of Brexit on the living standards of UK citizens may well be accurate and, as we know, economic conditions far outweigh other concerns when citizens cast their votes. It may also be that his support for continued British membership of the EU springs from a deep wish not to see the EU fragment because he regards it as an important force for stability in a more dangerous and uncertain world.
Yet the development of the EU since the Maastricht Treaty has raised increasingly serious doubts about its structure, socially, politically, economically and financially and Mr. Soros seems to ignore these.
The level of unemployment across the Eurozone remains at socially dangerous levels with youth unemployment even worse. (Germany is, of course, the glaring exception, the country having benefited disproportionately from a Euro much weaker than a continuing DM would have been.)
Politically, the EU is marching steadily towards authoritarianism with the systematic suppression of democratic accountability, a political structure which is a travesty of democracy and the dismissal of public objections to the EU as a regrettable recrudescence of nationalism. Nearly 20 years ago, in his book Democracy in Europe, Larry Siedentop, then a Reader in Politics at Oxford, described the EU as a bureaucratic tyranny. The position is worse today. It may be disobliging to say so but the British take democracy seriously and have a very much longer experience and practice of it than any of the other major EU members.
Economically, the introduction of the Euro has exposed the fundamental incompatibility of most of the Eurozone members. The consequence has been persistent extremely low growth. The unrelenting German insistence that the other Eurozone members magically morph into mini Germanys demonstrates both a blinkered unwillingness to adapt to reality and a serious lack of humanity (and, it may be said, a lack of European spirit).
Financially, the ever-growing Target 2 imbalances evidence the persistent economic and cultural differences between the EZ member nations. Furthermore, the level of (hard currency) sovereign debt in France, Italy, Spain and Greece is near or even beyond the 100% of GNP event-horizon heralding default. This structure is not sustainable.
In the face of these difficulties Mr. Soros’ unqualified plea for the maintenance of the EU in its present state seems perverse. Perhaps like Mr. Micawber, he thinks that ‘something will turn up’ and solve the crisis. Yet Mr. Soros’ own life and public stature and his historic and strong commitment to democracy and to Europe may help him to devise a structure which combines a realistic treatment of the Europe’s problems with genuine democracy.

The European Union is not perfect and never will be. Nor is the United States, which is a fully Federalised system which has been in place 200 + years. You do not give examples of the EU's democratic deficits so I cannot comment on any. What I would like to point out to you is just how implausible your arguments about the EU's shortcomings seem when compared to the internal failings of the entire British political system.

If we are coming out of the European Union, post haste, as a result of one national option poll that was meant to be advisory, then perhaps you'll have the time to devote to a critique of the UK Government, with a particular focus on how a modern state can put itself in such a position of imperilment. You could then turn to the vague and shifting UK Constitution (some say non-extant) and to the hastily coddled-together "Supreme Court." (We obviously won't be outdone by the Americans!)
Then perhaps you could turn to the House of Lords, but I suspect you will need several lifetimes to even make a start on this. The UK has been punching above its weight this many a long year. However, time has now caught up with her. Reform is long-overdue on many fronts. I had hoped it could be done within the economic safety net of the EU, but hey, What do I know? If we must alienate our friends and flounce out into the night alone, in order to find ourselves then so be it. At least we can give the Greeks something to laugh at in their time of strife.

You write, "....described the EU as a bureaucratic tyranny. The position is worse today..." Would you care to give just two cases where lives of ordinary citizens and functioning of every business & one on a national policy level? Thanks.

Agree wholeheartedly.
Democracy has produced Two Mandates in Two years - The Referendum and now The General Elections.
Now DEMOCRACY faces demolition by The Unelected and Undemocratic Brussels.
Brussels remains unaccountable - Brussels simply will demolish every British Cabinet, however competent.
David Cameron Theresa May Jeremy Cornyn Ed Miliband - they don't matter, all their promises come to naught.
And the Brussels Package - if ever put to vote in Britain - is unelectable.
Am reminded of IMF packages for Emerging Economies - NOT ONE SINGLE COUNTRY EVER "EMERGED".
Any IMF Program - like The Brussels Packages - never had any hope of being elected in any Democracy.
So whether it is Cameron Miliband May or Cornyn - The Brussels demolition is a guarantee.
Only Two Countries will ever meet all The Rules that Brussels makes - France and Germany.

The commander must decide how he will fight the battle before it begins. He must then decide who he will use the military effort at his disposal to force the battle to swing the way he wishes it to go; he must make the enemy dance to his tune from the beginning and not vice versa. Bernard Law Montgomery ...

Sort of but not really. Young British skilled or unskilled people generally don't go looking for work on the continent. They are against the idea of not being in the EU as they have grown up with this concept of Europe that to be European and liberal and progressive you are part of the EU and anything else means you are inward, xenophobic and undynamic. A good proportion don't k ow that Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are not in fact part of the EU.

Also as far as the Tragic Grenfell tower it's rather disiengenious and eronneous to blame this on the tories. Labour has been hijacked by momentum extremist on the left. It's effectively Momentum. What the youth don't know is that after 4 years of a Corbyn social Marxist government they will be worse off.

UK will leave EU not when the Parliament passes all the laws but on 29 March 2019 whether there is a deal or no, and the "hung parliament" make it increasingly likely that there will be NO DEAL, ie hard brexit.

Has George Soros - soon 87 - written this commentary? If it's the case, he still has an incredibly sharp mind. Anyway, he seems optimistic about Theresa May's softened stance on Breixt after her failure to secure an overall majority. Whether it would be reversed, remains to be seen. It's not unrealistic to say that the negotiations would "take at least five years to complete." And it's unclear if they would have an impact on the 2022 elections, as there will be many twists and turns in the coming rounds of meetings.
Meanwhile the "economic reality is beginning to catch up with the false hopes of many Britons," who had been duped by false promises - more prosperity and better living standards - peddled by Brexiteers. Recent figures reveal rising household debt, that had helped boost the economy since Brexit; rising inflation and falling real incomes; etc. The painful trade-offs following a complete withdrawal from the EU may not be as far-fetched as Brexiteers believe.
One thing the author is right about May is that "nobody else would want to take her place." Besides, her political future is not certain. Hubris and electoral miscalculation had proved her undoing and she ended up worse-off after calling for an election nobody wanted. She also "deeply offended the core constituency, the elderly, of her own party. "Many either did not vote, or supported other parties." Jeremy Corbyn had a successful campaign - another factor that contributed to her defeat.
Launched by the "tactical voting" initiative against a hard Brexit, young people were mobilised to vote for Labour "in protest." Burnt by last years's EU referendum, young voters were determined to change May's course. They do not back the main premise behind her Brexit strategy - public concern over immigration is so great that it should dictate her policy. She was ready to leave the single market and the customs union, arguing that retaining membership would mean the UK had to continue to accept EU free movement.
In order to remain in power, May has no choice but to form a minority government. Soros says, she "may have to abandon her ill-considered alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party in Ulster and side more emphatically with the Tories of Scotland, who are keen on a softer version of Brexit." But the Scottish Torries have Scottish interests at heart, causing tensions with May's key advisers. It's most likely they will fall out with the DUP - a narrow-minded, parochial party from Northern Ireland.
During the campaign Corbyn sought a “softer” Brexit – one that would enable Britain to retain more economic ties with the EU than May initially planned. In fact the election had been seen by many as a “proxy re-referendum” against hard Brexit. Since then senior business leaders are pressing her to rethink her stance on hard Brexit, saying she has not won the mandate in election to take Britain out of Europe's single market.
May's mantra - "No deal is better than a bad deal" - since she took office a year ago didn't go down well with businesses. They also sound the alarm on the impact that curbing immigration could have on the economy. Now they want their prime minister to change her tone, as well as a formal role in the Brexit process.

There is no reset button and for the UK to remain in the EU there have to be concessions and there is no sign of that being possible as far as the EU goes

I find it dark humour that the EU might be waking up to the 15% budget hole, perhaps they should of considered that issue before they were so dogmatic in the lead up to the Brexit referendum. Stupid is as stupid does, and there are enough members of the EU only to willing to self harm the EU

This article is like a fat man in a corset. At first sight all looks reasonable, then when you look closer there are bulges of nonsense trying to break out.

As pointed out in the article it looks like May lost the GE not because of Brexit but because of domestic issues eg trying to grab old folks houses as soon as they were buried. Then the blame for Grenfell is placed on one political party when similar risks are all over the country and as usual the problem comes back to shoddy regulations. Now when did that come up before, oh yeah, the credit crunch

It will be miraculous if May lasts the year. She has displayed near zero empathy with the public in the GE and during Grenfell and the Tories like to spill their own blood more than anybody else's for some reason which is beyond me.

The opposition occupies the benches in front of you, but the enemy sits behind you... Winston Churchill

Whether Brexit is a swift 19th century style battle field surgery or an extended agony of a thousand cuts the chances of a road back to the last century are to infinity and beyond and mumbling about it is just that, mumbling

"I find it dark humour that the EU might be waking up to the 15% budget hole, perhaps they should of considered that issue before they were so dogmatic in the lead up to the Brexit referendum. Stupid is as stupid does, and there are enough members of the EU only to willing to self harm the EU"

It's not so simple as that - but then the supplicant is the UK and the chips belong to the EU in the long term. The 'people' voted at a time when 'government' was unpopular - they took aim at the wrong target.

"The Brexit referendum cannot be undone, but people can change their minds.

Apparently, this is happening. Prime Minister Theresa May’s attempt to strengthen her negotiating position by holding a snap election badly misfired: she lost her parliamentary majority and created a hung parliament (no single party has a majority)."

The plan did backfire, and spectacularly so.

But to suggest it was due to voters changing their minds over Brexit is not borne out by a dispassionate assessment of the results.

Over 80% of the voters opted for parties openly supporting the so-called hard Brexit option.

Labour, whom I voted for, were smart enough to distance themselves from the Brexit issue, but the reality is that a hard Brexit would be necessary for the party to be able to carry out much of their manifesto, much of which I imagine would horrify Mr. Soros.

Likewise, the UK-wide parties offering a second referendum, in which remaining in the EU was an option, performed terribly, with the LibDems managing to get an even lower share of the vote than in 2015 and losing its highest profile Europhile, Nick Clegg.

Mr. Soros is ideologically wedded to the UK remaining in the EU, come what may, because it fits his narrative, in particular the continued weakening of the nation state.

As a pragmatic remainer, I find Mr. Soros' interventions to be deeply unhelpful to the Remain cause. The only times Mr. Soros was mentioned during canvassing was by Brexiteers, who cited his support for Remain as forming part of their narrative against globalism.

Mr. Soros has no traction or mandate among the British electorate, and is quite possibly only second to Tony Blair in terms of toxicity.

I'd suggest, as plenty of polls have, that rightly or wrongly, many Brits simply don't care all that much about Brexit.

Beyond tweets, 2 moderately sized marches and a few failed crowdfunding campaigns, there has been remarkably little public opposition to Brexit post-June 23.

The take-away conclusions from June 8 should that a party which makes Brexit the main issue of their manifesto will be punished at the polls, that there is little demand for a second referendum, and lastly, that much of the electorate are, at best, apathetic about Britain's membership of the EU.

Brexit won't be stopped by interventions by George Soros or Barack Obama or Tony Blair, nor will it be stopped by presenting a rehash of last year's failed, dismally negative, Remain arguments from last year, however valid those arguments may be.

It can only be stopped by a Remain campaign willing to engage and listen to the concerns of Brexiteers, as opposed to simply insulting them, and actually present a clear positive vision for a future in the EU, one that both respects and protects the clearly defined boundaries of the electorate but also provides a platform for a more positive engagement inside the EU.

An interesting analysis, Mr Bashir, but I disagree with a couple of your assertions.

1. The fact that "Over 80% of the voters [in this year's General Election] opted for parties openly supporting the so-called hard Brexit option" does not mean that 80% of voters are in favour of a hard Brexit. I voted Labour, but I am implacably opposed to Brexit in any shape or form.

2. You suggest that "rightly or wrongly, many Brits simply don't care all that much about Brexit." I would be interested to hear your sources, because I have never seen such a poll. On the contrary, I think that an increasing number of Brits are scare shitless by the stupidity of Brexit, and how it will affect them personally.

I do, however, agree entirely with you that Remainers need to "present a clear positive vision for a future in the EU", and I think that that is what George Soros is suggesting in his final paragraph - "the two parties might want to remarry even before they have divorced."

My personal view is that the sensible approach is for the UK to offer to rescind Article 50, in return for a negotiated change to freedom of movement. Mrs Merkel and M Macron have both indirectly indicated that they would would be open to such a suggesion. The problem is that word "sensible" which is not one that should be used anywhere near the fuckwits in the current UK government.

Thank you Mr Soros for an excellent analysis. As you say, the parties may want to remarry even before their divorce. The consensus among my many contacts in Germany is simple: Brexit will not happen. It is out of the question. They are not clear on why they hold this position. But there are many reasons why the damage of a divorce to the UK would be massive and permanent. See:
http://www.themoneytrap.com/brexit-britain-bows-historic-adversaries/